Should they recuse themselves from climate cases?
This week, ThinkProgress’ Lee Fang revealed several documents outlining the details of one of right-wing billionaire Charles Koch’s secret convenings of corporate political donors. As Koch revealed to the Wall Street Journal in 2006, the purpose of these meetings is to recruit “captains of industry” to fund the conservative infrastructure of front groups, political campaigns, think tanks and media outlets. Buried in this document, however, is a surprising revelation about the role two supposedly impartial jurists have played in these extended fundraising solicitations: “Past meetings have featured such notable leaders as Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.”
TP looks closer at the implications of this revelation in this cross post.
A Supreme Court justice lending a hand to a political fundraising event would be a clear violation of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, if it wasn’t for the fact that the nine justices have exempted themselves from much of the ethical rules governing all other federal judges. Nevertheless, a spokesperson for the Supreme Court tells ThinkProgress that “[t]he Justices look to the Code of Conduct for guidance” in determining when they may participate in fundraising activities. Under that Code:
Fund Raising. A judge may assist nonprofit law-related, civic, charitable, educational, religious, or social organizations in planning fund-raising activities and may be listed as an officer, director, or trustee. A judge may solicit funds for such an organization from judges over whom the judge does not exercise supervisory or appellate authority and from members of the judge’s family. Otherwise, a judge should not personally participate in fund-raising activities, solicit funds for any organization, or use or permit the use of the prestige of judicial office for that purpose. A judge should not personally participate in membership solicitation if the solicitation might reasonably be perceived as coercive or is essentially a fund-raising mechanism.
Scalia and Thomas’ participation in these fundraising gatherings also call into question whether they can be impartial in any number of cases brought by Koch-aligned groups seeking immunity to the law. Most significantly, the Koch brothers have contributed significantly to efforts to stop the Affordable Care Act from going into effect, and a number of attendees at the Koch’s secret meetings include health industry moguls with a direct financial stake in the litigation challenging health reform (Justice Thomas’ wife, of course, actively lobbied against the Affordable Care Act).
Court observers hoping that Scalia and Thomas will recuse themselves from cases backed by the “Kochtopus” shouldn’t hold their breath, however. During the Bush Administration, Justice Scalia infamously refused to recuse himself from a suit against Vice President Dick Cheney even after it was revealed that Scalia and Cheney went on a duck hunting trip together during the pendancy of Cheney’s case. Scalia also came under ethical fire when he skipped Chief Justice Roberts’ swearing in ceremony to attend a junket to a Ritz-Carlton resort funded by the right-wing Federalist Society; and Thomas accepted more than $42,000 in free gifts in just six years on the Supreme Court.
At the very least, however, Scalia and Thomas should publicly disclose exactly what role they played in supporting Koch’s secret fundraising network. These fundraising meetings exist for the purpose of eliminating laws and regulations that corporate America does not like, and a sitting Supreme Court justice can do a great deal to advance this purpose (indeed, Scalia and Thomas both already handed an enormous gift to the Koch’s corporate network by joining the egregious decision in Citizens United v. FEC). The two justices’ attendance at these events raise serious questions about whether Scalia and Thomas are deciding cases impartially “” or whether they are pushing the exact same agenda as all the Koch events’ other attendees.
– Ian Millhiser, in a ThinkProgress cross-post.
JR: Given that the Koch brothers are the premiere of funders of anti-science, pro-pollution disinformation on global warming and clean air, Scalia and Thomas need to disclose their role in supporting Koch or all of their rulings on those subjects will be called into question:
- From promoting acid rain to climate denial “” over 20 years of David Koch’s polluter front groups
- Pro-pollution, anti-science Koch Industries takes credit for the ‘spontaneous’ tea parties: We’re glad we ‘helped stimulate’ them.
- Report: Koch Industries outspends Exxon Mobil on climate and clean energy disinformation
Previous in TP Climate Progress
Language Intelligence: Lessons on persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln, and Lady Gaga
Bush Sr and Jr made sure that there would be no more Earl Warrens who may later develop consciences by choosing cruel zealots for the Supreme Court. All four right wing judges have made it clear that their mission is to grovel to the wealthy while putting the screws to the rest of us.
They love those crystal dining sets, fine wine with grassfed prime rib, and grinning speeches from scum like David Koch and Rex Tillerman. Or, in the case of Scalia, drinking single malt while hanging out with a VP and mowing down innocent birds with shotguns. this is a disgrace, but there may not be any recourse, since they have lifetime appointments.
For Justice Scalia and Thomas and The Rest of The Justices To Consider
These Justices should take note of something that they ought to already understand.
As context, first, I’d like to say that I deeply respect the Supreme Court as an institution and idea. And, I am (usually) a law-abiding citizen: I do get speeding tickets every few years, and a parking ticket now and again.
That said, IF Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas are participating in such things, and IF they don’t recuse themselves from judging cases involving people they know or organizations they’ve “supported” or participated with before, such actions DEEPLY reduce my respect for them and (thus) my respect for the Court’s decisions in which they participate. And when I say DEEPLY, I mean DEEPLY and also (possibly) in practical terms.
Ethical considerations, when they are important and sound ones, are broader and deeper than, and can often take precedence over, laws and legal decisions. In other words, when a substantive ethical consideration and basic excellent reasoning collide with a law that is (to that degree) not ethical or not responsible in the big scheme of things, or not just, the ethical consideration and basic excellent reasoning prevail, and that particular law loses its justification and sensibility, so to speak. Ask Thomas Jefferson, ask Martin Luther King Jr., ask Gandhi, ask George Washington, ask Ben Franklin, and so forth.
So, respect for the Court, and (in very practical terms) respect for an adherence to the laws it decides, are not boundless or irrevocable things. If the Court intermingles itself with private interests or other interests that are biasing or give the appearance of bias, it loses — and WILL lose — credibility and force, and justly so. Who are the final judges, really? The people, including me and all others, acting as individuals and/or groups. And, also, importantly, if the Court makes decisions that are CLEARLY unjust and dangerous, and indeed harmful to humankind, then I for one will reserve the right to entirely ignore those particular decisions. Did I just say I might break the law? You bet. In fact, in some cases I’d consider it a human responsibility to do so, IF a law is enacted that is distinctly against the interests of humankind. Again, my references will be Thomas Jefferson and all the others just mentioned.
I’m sending this — with all due respect (and there is still some very due respect) — to hopefully make sure that these Justices understand that, in some cases, ethics and sensibility prevail over law, EVEN law that the Supreme Court has decided. And I’m also sending this because, IF it’s true that some Justices are participating IN ANY WAY in these sorts of things, then my respect for them goes way down, and it makes it all that much more likely that I’ll take their rulings lightly. Shall I list more references from history?
If this message sounds grumpy or reactionary, I’ll again say that I’m a citizen, respectful of laws (when they are at least largely just and at least remotely sensible), and I’ve only ever gotten speeding tickets and parking tickets. But I understand enough about law and ethics, and basic sense, to know that ethics and basic sense win against laws that are unjust, nonsensical, and dangerous. In order to preserve the respect that people have for the Supreme Court, while we still have it, the Justices should keep all these things in mind and take them deeply to heart.
By the way, IF Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas are actually doing things like this post suggests, and IF they don’t promptly recuse themselves from any cases about which they may give the appearance of bias, I would be having a “fit” if I were the other Justices, and I’d make my concerns public and pointed if the guilty Justices don’t amend their ways after a good talking-to.
Be Well,
Jeff
Jeff Huggins
U.C. Berkeley, Class of 1981 (but not in The Law)
Harvard, Class of 1986 (but not in The Law)
Concerned Citizen (but about global warming, the media, the influence of money in politics, and a few other things; not to be confused with Tea Party sorts of concerns)
Jeff, Well stated.
It’s also useful to remind people who follow climate-change discussions that, in these times when we have Congressmen like Tom DeLay* and candidates for Congress like Joe Miller and Sharron Angle, the person most often accused of hypocrisy is Al Gore, and the person most frequently blasted for breaking the law is Dr. James Hansen.
Something is out of joint there. How does the acronym go? I think one form of it is IOKIYAR.
* Yes, I know DeLay is out of Congress. I refrained from naming current members.
Cannot say it better myself, Jeff.
Thank you.
Leif
I always look for Jeff Huggins’s comments. This one, Jeff, really hits the mark! We have many deep worries these days with climate warming probably our deepest, but ethics and politics in our Supreme Court also have long-lasting effects that may (and often has in the past) bring ruin to our particular civilization.
After the stunt the court played in Bush II vs. Gore, it lost all credibility. The Supreme Court is just another plaything of the right-wing rich and multinational corporations. How can anyone take the court seriously after it fixed the election for Bush?
All three branches of the U.S. government are bought and paid for. The democratic ideals that the U.S. was founded on disappeared long ago if they ever existed. With the help of the corporate media, the people have become inconsequential pawns.
How do you fix this? I don’t have the foggiest but any challenge to the current system will be strongly opposed by the powerful. People should realize the Game is rigged.
Sorry for the rant but this Scalia/Thomas thing shouldn’t surprise anyone.
That’s it. We need to use all the ways and means possible to frustrate the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy’s spread of their nonsense, or otherwise make life as difficult for them as possible. Slowly coaxing people to vote Democrat, reaching out an olive branch to the Tea Party, writing exposés, etc. etc. etc. — none of these will do any good as long as the conspirators can continue to pump out their garbage to millions of people in America and elsewhere. We need to find a way to halt the bullshit mill.
– frank
During bush vs fl sup court one us sup court
justice kept saying that respect should be
for the constitution and the fl sup court decision.
She wasn’t followed by the majority of the court.
They didn’t understand her point?
Peter W. doesn’t have the foggiest idea (he says) how to fix the enormous, but finite, power of the right-wing rich and multinational corporations. But our Constitution gives power to the ordinary people through the use of the voting ballot. What is needed is for everyone to exercise that power intelligently. I believe strongly that EDUCATION is the key. If we want liberals in our government then we must greatly strengthen a liberal pre-K through grade 12 education curriculum. If we want legislation that accounts for scientific knowledge and analysis, then we must educate our future legislators and their aides so they get more science and math in their education. Easy, NO. But it can be done and is being done in some Asian countries especially.
The Supreme Court recently decided that corporations as artificial persons constitute a disadvantaged class and that their financial contributions to political campaigns and causes constitute a form of speech protected by the principle of freedom of speech and thus should face few restrictions:
Given this I have already lost virtually all respect for the current court and given that these are lifetime appointments I hold out little hope for the future of the institution — an institution that plays the key role in interpreting and therefore defending the Constitution of the United States. This decision of theirs was the other shoe to Bush v. Gore. At this point I at least tend to view any political action that I might participate in as rearguard — and thus its primary value being that of slowing the decline of our great nation.
We should discourage and dissuade the common CO2 dance,
you know, where some personality is shown to get all
excited and incoherent about energy, then apparently,
lacking satisfaction stands ready for more…
It’s dramatization of what happens to CO2 when freely
exposed to radiant energy. So sad that some are so
limited it their understanding of current events.
I have to admit, I am shocked. Perhaps I shouldn’t be, but I am.
A senior at Cal State in Los Angeles who belongs to a student group on clean energy challenges Charles Koch, chief executive of Koch Industries, to debate on Proposition 23, which would definitely suspend California’s climate change and clean energy law.
http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/21/on-our-radar-a-debate-challenge-for-charles-koch/
From Ian Millhiser’s essay:
Sorry Joe — I hadn’t realized that the author of the post had already mentioned Citizens United v. FEC. But obviously Scalia and Thomas’ evident lack of impartiality brought to my mind the decision and so I immediately commented on it in 10 prior to finishing the essay.
I don’t know how many have thought of this — undoubtedly quite a few — but the first thing I thought of upon hearing of the decision is that it would it a great deal easier for a corporation such as Exxon to finance campaigns, buy politicians and exercise inordinate influence on our elections and democracy. And then of course I thought of what effect this will have upon our attempts to push through climate legislation.
But the problem is broader than this. Essentially, with there being few if any limits on their ability to finance campaigns corporations can easily control the ability of one or another politician to be heard and get their views across. In the long run politicians who are unwilling to play the game will generally fail to win elections and both parties will become far more corrupt.
But as Ian Millhiser points out the greatest immediate beneficiaries of this decision would appear to be the Koch brothers — who have largely financed the creation of the “Texas Tea” party movement. By comparison Exxon is a minor player among those who would prevent the passage of meaningful climate legislation.
In part I had to wonder to what extent this decision was a reaction to Obama’s example of how a politician could make use of an internet-based, true grassroots movement supported by the small donations of regular people and win elections. And perhaps in this there lies some reason for hope.
Their majority ruling is a concoction of constitutional fraud. Money is not Speech. Money is a traded symbol of socially agreed upon political power, with no inherent value (its a number). Speech is word uttered by mouth.
This is not a supreme court. This is supreme corruption. One of numerous examples why America is becoming a failed state. Between undeclared “War,” this court and the unlimited plutocratic and transnational influence of Congress the “rot from within” has metastasized. We are a diseased democracy, distorted by centralized, private profit, political power.
Hello Eaarth, hello Amerika.
In response to Timothy Chase’s comments – The concept of corporations having a right of free speech is hugely flawed. Corporations are legal entities that cannot talk or think. Only the people in charge of corporations can talk and think. They already have protections under the constitution.
By extending these rights to corporations you are giving those who run corporations double protections under the constitution which in my opinion is unconstitutional.
To suggest that the court decision that unleashed the current political spending was not partisan conservative power grabbing is absurd and an insult to human intelligence. Based on voting outcomes in the 2008 election, for every 40 Republicans that voted there were 60 Democrats that voted. This does not include the independents. In order for Republicans to win elections they need to repeatedly overcome this minority status which they accomplish by pumping money into the campaigns. The Republican leadership and the conservative judges on the supreme court are fully aware of this dynamic. Thus the ruling.
Shine a BIG light on them and watch the Kochroaches scurry for the slimy dark from whence they came.
Is there a way to make Scalia and Thomas become defendants in a court case?
– frank
In noticing that the ice shelf broke off of, I think there
was and is a difference between how much Greenland if rising
out of the ocean and how much the sea water is rising.
Is there a study showing the stresses such a difference causes
on the floating ice sheets?
The Right-Wing Oil Oligarchy has subverted the American rule of law.
Soon we will all have to apologize to BP.